Back in January 1993, the government put its signature to, and thus
accepted in prin-ciple, the Chemical Weapons Convention. Friends in high
places tell me that in the meantime British officials have been participating
in the preparatory commission working to establish the Organisation for
the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, as envisaged by the CWC. But full ratification
of the convention is going to be delayed until Parliament has passed the
appropriate legislation. Douglas Hogg, the Foreign Office minister, promises
‘legislation as soon as parliamentary time becomes available’.

Now, this really is specious. First, the unusually long Christmas break
for the House of Commons could have been curtailed for such important business.
And, secondly, before the bust-up between the government and the Opposition
over the hurry to get the social benefits bill through the Commons in mid-December,
there would have been no difficulty in getting MPs to agree the CWC legislation.
The main elements of such legislation would include rights of entry to stockpiles
and factories for inspectors, indemnification of inspectors against prosecution
while in the course of their work, the requirements for industrial declarations
on any possibly related work, and the detailing of offences relating to
noncompliance with the CWC.

For my part, I shall try to persuade my colleagues that whatever other
legislation they think it legitimate to oppose – and since the social benefits
fracas, the government has claimed the Opposition is ‘playing silly buggers’
– it should not be the legislation on chemical weapons. Britain ought to
be seen as one of the initiators and leaders in this field, as indeed it
was.

* * *

Advertisement

A great deal has been said and written about the Criminal Justice Bill,
which the Home Secretary, Michael Howard, launched at the Conservative
Party conference in the autumn, and which is now winding its way through
Parliament. But there is a lacuna. Medical research workers have suffered
much at the hands of extremists in recent years – more even than the highly
publicised attacks on the fox-hunting fraternity. There is no further provision
in the bill to protect them. The pros and cons of fox hunting are a matter
of opinion. What is certain is that medical researchers have been responsible
for major advances that benefit us all. Something beyond normal criminal
law is required to cope with the growing pattern of violence against them.
The first step should be to look at the legislation in the US to tackle
the problem of animal extremism.

* * *

Kenneth Calman, while Chief Medical Officer at the Scottish Office,
did much to encourage doctors and health workers to provide the kind of
education and screening that helps to reduce the incidence of disease in
five key areas: common cancers, coronary disease and strokes, mental illness,
HIV/AIDS and sexual health, and accidents. On his appointment as CMO to
the Department of Health in London, Calman, with enthusiastic ministerial
support, has developed these policies. The cloud on the horizon is that
if the directive on privacy – which the European Commission is drafting
– becomes law, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to assess the
success of Calman’s strategy. True, the directive reflects what is seen
as a public demand for greater protection of personal details. But medical
researchers claim that tighter controls could prevent them from using named
records. This, in turn, would make it difficult to tell whether the incidence
of diseases, such as skin cancer, had fallen to meet the government’s targets,
because crucial information is held in named files at Britain’s 18 cancer
registries.

These concerns, which a young medical researcher in my constituency
first brought to my attention, I buttressed with comments from Candice Goodwin
(‘Personal privacy v public health’, New Scientist, 11 December) and presented
to Foreign Office ministers. What, I asked, were the views of the department’s
lawyers on such matters?

Understandably, my worries were passed on to the Department of Health.
In a way, I was relieved to learn that the DH is as concerned as I am.
Tom Sackville, the junior health minister, admitted that his department
is also concerned by the directive, and particularly about the potential
effects on epidemiology research and public health monitoring. It seems
from what he said that a number of eminent bodies and individuals have expressed
similar concerns, both to the Home Office and to the European Commission.

Sackville said the DH is working closely with the Home Office, which
represents Britain on the Commission’s working party considering the draft
directive, and is pres-sing for amendments to safeguard research. Officials
at the DH are also liaising with the Standing Conference on Public Health
and the Medical Research Council, which are lobbying their European counterparts
to press for similar amendments. The minister told me that the Belgian presidency
had proposed a separate article for research, which goes some way to meeting
the DH’s concerns. However, discussion of this had only just started. In
the meantime, said Sackville, Britain would continue to argue strongly in
Brussels for amendments to the directive to allow vital research to continue
unhindered. I trust that Britain’s views will prevail in Brussels.